Reverend Dr. DeeDee M. Coleman is the Pastor of the Russell Street Missionary Baptist Church in Oak Park, Michigan.
This past Shabbat, Rev. Dr. DeeDee M. Coleman and Bishop Kenneth Ulmer were guest speakers at my synagogue, the Young Israel of Century City. Articulate and impressive religious and political thinkers, these Christian leaders are in the forefront of a new movement in some black churches—black churches are the engine of black politics—to forge ties with the American Jewish community. As strong supporters of Israel and active in AIPAC, both Rev. Dee Dee and Bishop Ulmer spoke of their profound concern for Israel’s security and existence.
As Rev. Dee Dee stated: “Of course the national debt is a major concern for American voters, but if Iran goes nuclear there won’t be a debt to worry about!”
At the end of their talk, we gave our Christian friends a standing ovation.
Bishop Kenneth Ulmer serves as the Senior Pastor-Teacher of Faithful Central Bible Church in Inglewood, California.
For several years, Seraphic Secret has warned that a nuclear Iran is a danger not just to Israel, but to the Sunni Gulf states, Europe and ultimately to America.
Sanctions have never in history deterred tyrants from achieving their goals. North Korea is the most heavily sanctioned country on the face of the earth and yet the totalitarians who rule that blighted land prefer to let their population starve—we’re talking millions of dead through hunger and disease—so they can become a nuclear power. To think that the Islamic theocrats of Iran would act any differently is to give clinical delusions the force of reality. We are talking about an Islamic leadership who, in Iran’s eight year war with Iraq, sacrificed over 100,000 children as human minesweepers. The children were given plastic keys around their necks and assured that this was the key to paradise.
Barack Obama is focused on his reelection. At this very moment he is strong-arming Israel, trying to extract a promise that the Jewish State will not defend herself against the existential threat posed by Iran before the 2012 election.
It’s good to know where Obama’s priorities lay. The Iranian threat should be beyond narrow political considerations. But of course that’s not how Obama rolls. The ultimate narcissist, this failed president cannot see beyond his own reflection.
Benjamin Netanyahu will respectfully listen to Obama’s emissary Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bibi will nod his head and make vague statements.
Obama can threaten dire consequences but all is just sound and fury when measured against a nuclear Iran.
A simple fact: Israel does not trust Obama.
The President of the United States is viewed as hostile to the Jewish State and a weak leader who chronically betrays his allies and enables Islamists. The Taliban are the most recent enemies of civilization to benefit by Obama’s largesse.
On Monday, Netanyahu, in a speech to Israel’s parliament, sent a not so subtle message to Obama:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Israel’s parliament Monday that the current sanctions against Iran are not going to stop its nuclear program.
Speaking to the Israeli Knesset’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, Netanyahu said stronger sanctions against Iran’s central bank and oil exports are needed to halt its nuclear ambitions.
“As long as there will not be effective sanctions on Iran’s central bank and oil industry, there won’t be any effect on its nuclear program,” Netanyahu said, according to Israeli media.
Full story at The Hill.
Ariel Chaim Avrech, ZT'L, May His Righteous Memory be a Blessing.
13 Comments
Here’s the great Iranian-British comedian and actor Omid Djalili on whether Iran should have a nuclear weapon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW-Gex12rjg
The salient bit’s at 2:05.
It’s interesting how much less anti-Israel an Iranian immigrant to the UK is than most of his British peer group. The lack of heckling gives me some hope.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Earl..”Had war between Germany and England began 12 months sooner, the RAF would not have had the numerical strength to resist.”
This is quite likely correct. BUT, if Britain and France had taken action against Germany at the time of the Rhineland incursion, in 1936, the balance of forces would have been overwhelmingly in their favor.
French captain (later general) Andre Beaufre has said that one of the arguments used by those who were opposed to a military response was fear that France would be branded as an aggressor by neutrals, especially the United States.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
David – in his biography of Churchill (The Last Lion) Wm Manchester delved deeply into European politics of the 1930s. And during Hitler’s marching into the Rhineland (1936) he was so weak that he would take the soldiers during the night – send them back over the bridge and “remarch” them during the day to give the impression his army was much stronger than it really was.
There were some German officers expecting Britain and France to intervene (this was a violation of the Versailles Treaty) – and they were ready to depose Hitler but Britain and France – who both lost nearly a generation of young men just 20 years earlier, had no more stomach for confrontation.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I highly recommend Beaufre’s book: 1940:The Fall of France, which provides an inside perspective (he was on the French staff at the time) on the debacle. He summed up the failure to intervene in 1936 with these words:
“The die was cast. We had let slip our last chance of stifling at birth the rise of Hitler’s Germany…Through idleness, stupidity, political blindness, or simply frivolity, general opinion lived through these grave events, the result of which was to be a great and catastrophic war, in a kind of sonambulism on which it is necessary to dwell at some length, because it shows how fate deals the cards of history and lulls to sleep its chosen victims.”
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
David, Barry, Bill
Thanks for your comments. I was thinking about these factors, and many more, when I wrote my earlier comment, but couldn’t see myself getting away with any less than 600 words. 1930s pacifism, Great Depression, Weimar Republic, Treaty of Versailles… Franco-Prussian War. So I took the easy way out.
David, the quote from Beaufre is great, he hits the target. Hindsight is wonderful (“if only we’d drafted a left tackle”) and we are eternally fated to live it repeatedly.
I again recommend Geoffrey Blainey’s ‘The Causes Of War.’
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Earl:
All that you write is academically correct, and irrelevant other than as an examination of failed leadership, its roots, causes and effect. This kind of thinking jeopardized the entire world, and most especially our part of it. The one thing government must provided is security. The Maginot line is not the answer, nor is foreign public opinion. We don’t need to be popular, we do need to be successful and safe. Someone once wrote about Winston Churchill: “He was wrong about everything except Hitler. That was enough.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Barry
The historical episodes listed are not academic irrelevancies, they are essential to an understanding of Hitler’s rise to power and the outbreak of hostilities in 1939. You seem to have misunderstood my comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Earl:
I didn’t misunderstand, I simply want leadership n the present and future, that will morally and intellectually apply the approach that shelters us as American from dealing in a soft way with what amounts to a barbarian invasion. On this blog President Obama is often hammered. But, he ordered a hit on Bin Laden. That was smart. More of the same, please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nuclear War in the mid east – Russia sides with Iran – China ? – oil is stopped – how much of mid east oil does the West need?
Pretty bad scenario…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
It is hard to believe that there are people and governments so locked in to an anti-semitic, anti-Anerican and/or anti-Israeli view, that they could accept, whether left or right, Iran as a nuclear power. I trace this way of thinking back to the Korean War and Truman’s handling of the situation, and the firing of General MacArthur, leaving us open to the situation on the peninsula today. At present I am in Montreal, and not too long ago at a table with, among other people, a jewish lady who thought no military action should ever be taken until and unless our streets were at risk. She believed that the Second War was fought in a timely manner, which I do not believe. WE should have interrupted Nazi progress. Yes…?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Barry, the Battle of Britain was a close-run victory as it was. Had war between Germany and England began 12 months sooner, the RAF would not have had the numerical strength to resist.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Earl:
What I mean is that we should always be prepared for the worst. The United States was also in less than stellar shape militarily. That should not have been. This goes to leadership and its lack. We should have been in the war, at the least in 1939, but been prepared and as beliigerant as required earlier. In Korea, we should have finished what we started. I understand the reasoning re China. The current incarnation of that country doesn’t make it easier. I suppose philosophically, if you start doing something, then do it to the natural conclusion. These limited wars bring limited results.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
It’s easier to find a strong supporter of Israel in any Christian church than from the Jewish members in Congress.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0